to support strategies. it is a critical issue facing most working families. the community-based child-care is that a premium. only 43% of parents with children means that 55% of working families are not able to find it. additionally, it is important to recognize that it is the infrastructure that helped to maintain bc the's economy. -- the city's economy. those working parent turnover $1.4 billion annually in san francisco.

we would like to include a child-care providers under the exemption and recognizing that it ian essential service. given the serious lack of supply, it is sometimes effective. >> [reading names] those are the last people to turn in a speaker card. >> i live in the russian hill area. i have been a property owner for about 30 years. parking has become more and more difficult in the area. i have a grudge, but many of my neighbors did not. i find it very disturbing to encourage more cars to park for

long periods of time. we love children. i believe in more day care facilities. i know is difficult on young families. i find that this is encouraging less flexibility in the limited parking that we have in areas where parking is always extreme. everyone has their story, and those without a grudge -- garage need that space. vendors need to have a parking foplace in the two hours. the age limit, anyone with child up to 12 years.

perhaps they would consider a lower age limit where the child can be left for 10 or 15 minutes alone. i am also concerned about the time of day and use of nanny permits and how transferrable transferable they may be. -- i hope they can find other ways to take care of the children. >> good afternoon, president nolan. the supervisors sent a letter in support for child care providers. as noted in the letter, child-

care providers that come to their home, again, it is noted in the letter. they might need a car for a grocery shopping or other things. he believes it is important to have policies in place that support working families. i think a lot of working families out there have tried transit first. i am a mother. i work full time. so does my husband. it is extremely difficult to get around san francisco and do everything we need in terms of doctors' appointments. the parents have come to you and they have to find a way to fix it.

we were using muni the other day. we just want to thank the mta staff for the consideration and analysis. people are allowed anyway, and it is a good compromise. we hope it will improve child- care quality and generate additional revenue. thank you. >> he is the last person with speaker card. >> i am tony. i am strongly against this. when you have to cancel your own employee, now this blah blah

blah is coming. excusing you, there is a car there all day long. i pick up a nanny and go home. i'm a cab driver. most have no car. ok? listen to him. he is a politician. how abou the rest o -- about the rest of them? i know a lot of asian kids. anything you open up, they will abuse your system. please.

it is not only about the nanny. how about the neighborhoods? thank you. director nolan: members of the board. any thoughts on this one? director lee: i had an opportunity to talk about this issue. we got a lot of letters in support and a lot of letters opposed. it helps to look at this and we really want to support the transit first policy and we want to understand the needs of the parents. my concern is that it is really difficult to broad brush something. when you look at a residential permit, going block by block,

51% agree we need residential permit parkin. g. i want an amendment where you still need to do the block by block competition -- petition. 51% of the residents agree that we need this permit. that way, each element has their own characteristics. director nolan: we can hold off on a formal amendment at this point just to hear from other members. >> i wanted to talk about the process. this was an issue that was brought to us by a group of

mothers, parents, they have made inarticulate case. -- an articulate case. i feel even more strongly in support of this proposal. i want to compliment you on the efforts and the presentation you have made. it does not mean families and children. we have heard throughout this very meeting the importance of children as a part of the city. people speaking in favor of the hot caesar chavez park will benefit. this proposal will help some of our hardest working people, both the child care providers and working families. many of whom are not people of privilege. this is a transportation and

child care issue. i hear the concerns that are being levied against. it might lead to a flood of new parking. i don't think that will happen. but it is something we can handle. there are thousands of requests , and it has not happened the way that the staff calculated it would. perhaps unemployment or something like that. we can consider greater enforcement. i don't think that will happen.

the fears that haven't materialized are reasons to kill this project. i come to what is really an important issue, that asymmetry. -- is symmetry. i have struggled with that. it takes me to a point that is bigger than muni. there is a perception that this city is not as child and family friendly as other communities might be.

those pressures exist. we are committed to staying here. but i am concerned that rejecting his proposal would be an unfair and asymmetrical policy decision, but it would bolster this perception out there that policymakers do not care about children and families as much as they should. and even though it is a small project, i strongly favor this. i think we have a recommendation from the staff as to how to make this work right now.

director brinkman: when i think of this in terms of expanding the parking for the city, where do we have now? i think of the number of writers and the task force. -- riders. the only way to do that is get busses out from behind the car traffic. anything that we do to incrementally increase the car traffic makes it impossible to do that. every trip we have negatively impacts. i have to oppose it.

>> i have given this a great deal of thought. at this point, i am inclined to support a director lee's position. a compromise that makes sure there is not any abusive and provides for what is obviously a critical issue. >> i used to not worry about being heard. that is no longer true. all of the correspondence that has come across my computer for

my desk, i believe that we are all -- i am open to anything that helps. i'm all for children. they are the lifeblood of this city. but i think i'm inclined to lean towards the transit side and let's see if we need to do this. i don't think we do. people can manage this other ways. if other ways need to be found, what we are proposing today,

let's do it. i'm not going to vote for this . >> i have given this a lot of thoughts. i believe that san francisco and the transit -- it is critical that we review that policy. i think the children of san francisco are important to us. we think about the elderly and disabled. we think about expanding any type of exception. i believe that we can adopt

something in the middle or a pilot program to see if we can find something that works for the benefit of everyone. i think we have to have parameters to make sure that it is not abused as well as for the elderly and the disabled. [laughter] >> i thought you were going to pu tmt me in the middle. director nolan: we have director lee's suggestion. mr. yee?

>> do we have an idea of how many people use all four? >> very few households have used to the maximum cap before. mostly one, i believe. >> why did you come up with that? 12-year-old kids sound more like a babysitter to me. >> we had a certain threshold. taxpayers claim this -- i forgot what it's called. the exemption they claim for child credit.

it was a convenient age to use. >> it seems to me that it is a very significant point. it sounds to me like a baby sitters as opposed to a small child. the time of day is a good question that somebody raises. let's say we were going to go through different hours. it seems like it could be a logistical nightmare.

>> and the proposal as for the permit to be valid. >> presumably, the parents would be home. >> it would put an extra burden on beat officers leading to distinguish between the different times. >> it is revocation of that permit. >> we thought it should be a lot more severe than that. >> we discussed it yesterday. we are limited by what the actual stakes are right now. director nolan: it doesn't seem

like much of a penalty to me. >> i don't believe that we have been asked to look at the various options or penalties. the answer is related. we would be happy to look into that. director nolan: it doesn't seem like much of a penalty. it seems to me it should be a lot more severe. anyone want to comment? let's try to -- >> i would have no problem with

penalties. people that defraud the city and should face a penalty. it is not designed by my goal to expand. people that use this legitimately which have no objection to the penalties. director nolan: may become buying -- maybe combining director bridges' notion, changing the age limits, strengthening the penalties. maybe a six-month trial. transit frisirst is very

important. but i'm aware of how family unfriendly the city can be. we think it is a very small number of people. most households that have that number of permits, it is not somebody going from 3 to 4. maybe two to three. i could support that. director beach: i have listened to all of my fellow director's comments. i realize there is room for compromise on this issue. director lee's approach that would look at this on a block by

block basis, which addresses the concern of residents where there's very little parking. we have more than saturated the parking. hall would continue to support taking a look at the block by block basis. director nolan: is that how we would do that? as opposed to the staff recommendation? >> i have a couple of comments on that. are we going to take away health care provider permits if the neighborhood of votes that there

is not enough parking to support that? that is my rhetorical question. my procedural question would be, if we are going to amend something, i very much appreciate that the president and vice president are working here to address this. if we are going to amend it, i would rather do that with the staff rather than on the fly. if it comes to the case, i will vote for it. i am against that, but i will vote for it. when we get to very good ideas or any sort of ideas about enforcement of planning, we are better off sending it back to staff as opposed to doing it on

the fly. >director nolan: director brinkman, you sort of said -- do these rise to the level of you being able to support it? director brinkman: the neighborhood agrees to them, and we don't have to take away the health care worker permits at all. i think i can support that amendment. >> i can support that. hong but again, i worry about abuse. -- but again, i worry about abuse. director nolan: the time period

of six months or something. >> i think the way we should do this, actually, if we're going to make any amendments, i think we should vote for the original proposal up or down. and director lee can make his amendment? if this is the way it's going to go, i can support director lee's amendment. i am not sure how we are supposed to do that procedurally. director nolan: that would be the first action.

>> if you wish to amend it today rather than draft amendment language, consider the amendment first. >> getting a sense of the board and conversation, there is some consensus around a resident survey. that is the time it will take us to mobilize the staff, put a process together, that will bring us to january. there will be management issues and those types of things that we can bring back to you.

we can bring back to you the age limit discussion and we can bring back to you the penalty discussion. we'll be able to bring those items before you if we actually execute the process. we move forward now with developing the permanent home, developing the application process. it is not necessary today that we have the aids discussion as well as the penalty discussion. director nolan: willis still take nine months to get this thing to happen? how about director lee's? how about director lee's? >> we would have the resident